Talk:Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union

Merge from Psikhushka

Psikhushka is a Russian slang term for "psychiatric hospital" and its relevance for English-language encyclopedia is only in the context of political abuse of psyschiatry. This page was forked after the move of the original page for reason I fail to comprehend today. - Altenmann >t 06:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose because the article Psikhushka is about the lexical meaning and usage of the word psikhushka, not about the political use of psychiatry. --Psychiatrick (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

One sentence of lexical meaning belongs to wiktionary. We do have articles about words and phrases in wikipedia, but this is when there is enough encyclopedic content about the word. The current content of Psikhushka is no about lexical meaning, but about psych abuse. - Altenmann >t 05:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The contents of the two above-mentioned articles show that the word psikhushka and political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union are different things with different definitions. So it seems to be impossible to begin the latter with the definition of the word psikhushka. Later on, we would be able to add to the article psikhushka an information about the types, constructions, and locations of psikhushkas. --Psychiatrick (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@ "begin the latter": Why would you begin the latter with this? "Psikhuska" may be a separate section. - Altenmann >t 08:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@ "Later on": If you start doing so, then the proper title would be Psychiatric hospitals in Russia and the Soviet Union, because we don't use the title "cunt" for the article "vulva". - Altenmann >t 08:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. When an information is sufficient, we will start Psychiatric hospitals in Russia and the Soviet Union and create redirect from psikhuska. Psychiatrick (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Split proposal

This is a very impressive article. Congrats to User:Psychiatrick and other editors involved. At 270k, this article needs to be split (not merged), as the excessive length makes navigation and readability difficult. I would suggest splitting off the Cases section to a new article, leaving a summary and link to the new page here, per WP:SS. Perhaps the new article could be in List form, similar to this? Comments? Johnfos (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have split up the article by having moved the Cases section to the new article Cases of political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. It seems to me to be not very important whether the new article is a list or not. --Psychiatrick (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

CCHR

Psychiatrick reverted me in this dif. The paragraph I removed was sourced from documents generated by an organization called Citizens Commission on Human Rights. You have been apparently fooled by the name. If you look at the article about them, you will see that they are a front group owned and run by Scientology. Their views on psychiatry are WP:FRINGE and should not be used to source content about psychiatry in Wikipedia. We don't espouse pseudoscience in Wikipedia - that is policy. There are plenty of great, mainstream sources to support this important topic. Because this is a policy issue, I am re-reverting. Please discuss here and provide a rationale for using a FRINGE source. The burden is on you for that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the rationale in my edit summary "The content is related to human rights issues and based on secondary sources such as the Independent Psychiatric Journal." It is not the CCHR that publishes the Independent Psychiatric Journal and other sources which were related to the content removed by you. It is also not the CCHR that has the point of view that a Russian court started the trial for extremism against the CCHR because of the CCHR tries to get the rehabilitation for former Soviet dissidents victimized by political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. It is the point of view shared by all the Russian government agencies and publications that are not FRINGE sources.--Psychiatrick (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I am bringing this source to RSN. You have no leg to stand on. You have a FRINGE stance articulated by a journal in Russian. Does not even come close to complying with WP:RS. I will create the posting and provide a link here. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. I think it is not a FRINGE stance when Russian judicial authorities bring an organization to a trial and submit the documentation about the trial to Russian publications such as the Independent Psychiatric Journal published by the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia. Psychiatrick (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Citizens Commission on Human Rights is a fringe source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But in the removed part of the content, I used other sources rather than ones published by the CCHR. Do you see me? Please read my replies above again. Psychiatrick (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)